Old Europe and the Mullahs

Philip Giraldi

There has been a noticeable shift in the rhetoric
emanating from the proponents of war with Iran, almost certainly due to the
perception that armed conflict with Tehran will not be as easy a sell as was
Iraq. The shift is most marked within the Bush Administration itself, where
daily attacks on Iran that started with the State
of the Union message on January 10th have largely disappeared and where
both civilian and military government spokesmen have even begun contradicting
each other on the level of threat posed by Tehran. The neocons at The Weekly
Standard and the "scholars" at the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) have likewise lowered their voices and are now suggesting that the Iran
conundrum can be solved through the resolute application of economic and political
sanctions, and not necessarily through war. A February 14th piece in the Financial
Times by AEI and Weekly Standard stalwarts Reuel Marc Gerecht and
Gary Schmitt makes
the curious case that Iran can be hobbled if only the Europeans get together
and impose draconian economic sanctions. Otherwise, either Israel or the United
States (or both) will be forced to take action against a "terrorist supporting
state" that cannot be militarily deterred, two assertions that are at best
questionable.

The same theme has been picked
up by Frank Gaffney in the pages of The Washington Times. Gaffney,
who has urged the Europeans (and everyone else) to tighten the economic vise
on Iran, also seems to believe that Iran is unique among nations in that it
cannot be dealt with except through coercion. The Gerecht-Schmitt and Gaffney
articles are, as ever, all part of a curious point-the-finger game as the authors
prefer to blame Europe for not acting with sufficient vigor while simultaneously
failing to consider whether the United States or Israel has anything to do with
the disastrous power vacuum in the Persian Gulf region that Iran has been able
to exploit. In fact, to the manifest pleasure of the neocons, Old Europe can
plausibly be blamed for nearly everything going wrong in the world. Europe did
not wholeheartedly support the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq, causing
that estimable project to fail. It has not provided enough soldiers or money
to fix the shattered pieces of Afghanistan left behind by the US, leaving the
door open to a Taliban resurgence, and it also consistently fails to support
the Israelis unconditionally in their dealings with their neighbors, allowing
terrorists to go forth and multiply throughout the Middle East. The neocon armchair
warrior world view assumes that Israel and the United States possess a clarity
of vision that the rest of the world apparently lacks. They bewail European
short-sightedness while also denying the right of Iran and even of the Arab
Gulf States to have national interests that in any way cause discomfort either
to Tel Aviv or Washington. Gerecht and Schmitt assert piously and somewhat disingenuously,
that "Washington and Jerusalem clearly have no desire to attack Iran,"
a claim that is apparently more clear to them than it is to the rest of the
world, which has been nervously watching the ominous military buildup taking
place in the Persian Gulf.

Blaming Europe has become somewhat of a fashion both with the White House and
the think tanks ever since Germany and France refused
to line up and join the "coalition of the willing" prior to America's
ill-fated invasion of Iraq. While "freedom
fries" can be seen as some kind of a pathetic joke, the neocon disdain
for America's traditional European allies as somehow lacking in the manly virtues
is both palpable and more serious. The Europeans increasingly find themselves
caught between a rock and a hard place, wishing to maintain the Atlantic Alliance
while at the same time serving as intermediaries in a process where the United
States and Israel have no
desire to see an actual solution.

The European Union group of three consisting of Germany, Britain, and France
has been negotiating directly with Iran since
2003. Negotiations with Tehran several times seemed to be on the verge of
success, most particularly in the aftermath of the Paris
Agreement of 2004 [.pdf]. The United States, disinclined to participate
in talks with an "axis of evil" government, has left the negotiating
to the Europeans but has, at the same time, refused to commit itself to working
for a solution in spite of the fact that it is indispensible to arriving at
an amicable settlement with Iran. Washington has consistently refused to provide
any security guarantees to Tehran, a gesture that would almost certainly lead
to an enormous improvement in relations, and has also rejected
a number
of Iranian offers to discuss all bilateral issues. It has also been reported
that Washington, even though a non-participant, several times put pressure on
the Europeans to avoid any agreement or understanding that did not include complete
Iranian capitulation on the nuclear energy issue, virtually guaranteeing that
talks would go nowhere. Without talks, war becomes the only option, something
that the Bush Administration understands perfectly well in spite of its denials
that it's seeking a military solution.

Regarding Iran, the neocons and the Administration are now suggesting that
everyone should relax, that war is not being planned and that a possible military
strike against Tehran is a year away if not more and only then if the Iranians
continue to be unreasonable and misbehave. This curious turnabout coming from
pundits who only one
month ago were predicting an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb and who were
baying
for blood does have an explanation, or rather several explanations. The
abruptness of President George W. Bush's turning up the pressure on Iran in
January clearly scared a lot of people, not only in Iran but also in the United
States, particularly when it was followed by a "shoot
to kill" order against Iranians in Iraq. Evasion
on the part of Administration officials when asked whether the White House believes
it has the authority to start a war without Congressional approval also stoked
the fire. The re-emergence of the pattern that began five years ago with a daily
diet of threats and innuendo leading up to war with Iraq was all too obvious
and could not be ignored. This alarm resulted in unanticipated pressure from
normally unconnected groups that demanded some straight answers from the Administration
on its Iran policy. Even the mainstream media, normally predisposed to embrace
a belligerent policy against Iran because Tehran is an "existential threat"
to Israel, questioned just what the Bush White House was up to. The generally
acquiescent New York Times challenged the Iran policy in two leadingeditorials, though
it also provided a platform for Michael Gordon to continue to write anonymously
sourced articles denigrating Tehran that were little more than Pentagon
propaganda.

In Congress, a number of Democrats as well as Republicans began to demand an
explanation of the Administration's intentions and openly
questioned the presumed authority under which the US might again go to war.
Several currently debated House and Senate resolutions
are attempting
to create conditions whereby the White House must go to Congress if it wishes
to attack Iran, though it is widely believed that such legislative fixes will
go nowhere because of opposition being organized by the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Individual Congressmen
also began to feel the heat as constituents began to write and call objecting
to yet another "preemptive war of choice" and the media began to feature
letters to the editor and op-ed pieces opposing the all-too-obvious preparations
for hostilities. All of this made America's elected officials very nervous indeed,
and some Republicans were particularly concerned that a major misstep into Iran
could doom the GOP's electoral prospects for a long time to come.

Given the current lull, it might almost seem as if the war party has finally
had a reality check and is backing down, but to assume that such is the case
would be premature. This respite is in the nature of a smokescreen, a tactical
shift intended to mask the strategic decision that has already been made to
strike thousands of targets in Iran. Many elements can still come together to
start a war sooner rather than later. It is now being widelyreported
that the United States is carrying out so-called "black operations"
inside Iran by special forces as well as forays that have included bombings
and assassinations by dissidents that the Pentagon supports. Iran has yet to
respond to these operations aggressively, and if it does, there is potential
for an armed clash in which the US will be likely to claim interference with
the right of "hot pursuit" while chasing "terrorists." Also,
the Persian Gulf is becoming particularly
crowded with US warships. There is potential for another Gulf
of Tonkin-like incident with Administration figures presumably prepared
to cite an incident involving Iranian warships or coastal defenses as a pretext
for a massive counter-strike.

It also is pointless to hope for something from the new Democratic majority
in Congress as the neocons also know that the domestic politics of the situation
is on their side in spite of the fact that the American people do not want another
war. Recently, many presidential aspirants, both Republicans and Democrats,
have addressed Israeli
audiences to pledge that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. The majority
and minority leaders in both the House and Senate have also spoken in the same
vein, rattling their sabers at Iran. Congressman Gary Ackerman now heads the Middle East Sub Committee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee while Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. [Editor's note: This article originally
misidentified Rep. Ros-Lehtinen as the chair of the Middle East Sub Committee.
Our regrets for the error.] Both are regarded as passionate supporters of Israel, so
much so that when Ackerman recently held committee hearings on the Palestinians
he pointedly refused
to allow any Arabs to participate. All the speakers were either American Jews
or Israelis.

The recent formation of the Congressional Israel
Allies Caucus should also be noted as well as AIPAC's highlighting
of the threat from Iran at its 2006 convention in Washington, an event that
featured Vice President Dick
Cheney as keynote speaker. More recently, Senator Hillary
Clinton addressed an AIPAC gathering in New York City. Neither was shy about
threatening Iran. AIPAC's formulation that the option of force "must remain
on the table" when dealing with Iran has been repeated like a mantra by
numerous politicians and government officials, not too surprisingly as AIPAC
writes the briefings and position papers that many Congressmen unfortunately
rely on. Knowing that to cross the Lobby is perilous, Congressmen from both
parties squirm and become uneasy when pressured by AIPAC to "protect Israel,"
even if it means yet another unwinnable war for the United States. The neocons
know full well that if a war with Iran were to be started either inadvertently
or by design, few within America's political system would be brave enough to
stand up in opposition.